(iPoster) Evolving Interpretation of Human Rights over Time in the UN Treaty Bodies

• In Event: Poster Session: Human Rights & Issues in African Politics
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Human Rights

Abstract

The UN human rights frameworks are often perceived as static, with treaties seen as unchanging standards for the protection of human rights. However, in reality, these frameworks are dynamic, as the meanings of human rights evolve through the interpretive work of UN human rights monitoring mechanisms. Since their adoption, treaty bodies have continually reinterpreted provisions to address emerging human rights issues, shaping the understanding and application of rights with significant implications for global human rights discourse and practice.

This paper examines how and why the meanings of human rights-related terms have changed within UN human rights treaties over time, focusing on two key questions: How has the meaning of ‘rights’ evolved in treaty body documents? What factors drive these changes in interpretation?

I propose a novel theory that highlights the role of norm entrepreneurs—victims, advocates, NGOs, and treaty body members—in driving the expansion of rights. These actors push for reinterpretations that incorporate new issues and groups, thereby broadening treaty protections through their participation in monitoring mechanisms. Victims and NGOs use UN mechanisms to seek legitimacy for their claims, while treaty body members aim to demonstrate their relevance and expertise.

Using computational text analysis on an original dataset of treaty body documents, I examine shifts in the meaning and interpretation of key rights. Preliminary findings suggest that interpretations have evolved in response to contemporary challenges raised by norm entrepreneurs. For example, while traditional civil and political rights (e.g., the "right to life") remain relatively consistent over time under the ICCPR, non-traditional civil and political rights such as environmental and LGBT rights have gained greater prominence in later periods. An illustrative case study on obstetric violence also demonstrates how victims and advocates reframed what was originally considered medical mistreatment as obstetric violence, gender-based violence, and discrimination, prompting treaty body members to officially recognize the term to reinforce their relevance.

By highlighting these interpretive shifts, this research contributes to the field of international human rights. It explores how the activities of advocates, NGOs, and treaty body members enable original treaties to adapt to local and temporal specificities, offering new insights into the political processes shaping international human rights law. These findings have important implications for understanding the adaptability of human rights systems and for improving the measurement and operationalization of rights in both academic and policy contexts.

Author

• Soyeon Park, Michigan State University